PDA

View Full Version : Al Saunders...What he's done wrong.


jspchief
01-05-2006, 02:24 PM
I know there is a contingency that wants Saunders as a HC. It seems like most believe that's the only way to continue our offensive success. I don't agree, but I'll save that for another arguement. Instead, I'll focus on things that worry me about him being the main man.

1. Larry Johnson sat on the bench for the first year and a half of his career, not even activated for most of those games. I know he struggles with blocking, but that doesn't justify keeping someone with his running ability off of the field completely. He should have been getting at least some carries from day 1. The guy that was in charge of our offense let a grudge over drafting a guy he didn't want cloud his judgement.

2. Larry Johnson didn't become the starter until Holmes went down this year. It was clear that LJ was having more success than Holmes. He probably should have started seeing increased carries, with Holmes being moved to more of a 3rd down back. Again, the blocking excuse seems weak because we managed to get by with him for 9 weeks anyway. With LJ carrying the load, we may have had Holmes for pass blocking all season. In this case, it appears his loyalty for Holmes clouded his judgement.

3. Kris Wilson. Saunders had to have had a hand in drafting him. In a year when it was clear we desperately needed defense, Saunders was lobbying for a toy. A toy that has proven to be worthless thus far.

4. Clock Management. How often have the Chiefs made a crucial third down orgone for it on 4th down, only to act like they had no idea what to do with their success? Having to waste a timeout to call another play, when Green probably should have had a string of plays ready to call. This offense too often got caught looking caught off guard by their own actions.

5. In game adjustments. A prime example is the Buffalo game, where Saunders was incapable of tweaking the offense to exploit Buffalo's constant blitzes. We were running well against them, yet went to a pass heavy offense in the second half, even though their pass rush was murdering Green. And it's not just his inability to fix what's broken, it's his penchant for getting away from what's working. I can't remember how many times he's become pass happy in the second half even though we've been running wild.

6. This is an intangible that is more my opinion than anything that can be backed with stats. I don't think he fosters a winning attitude. We're like a machine, but seem incapable of turning it up when it's all on the line. Poor road records in December and against winning teams. I think it's an overall attitude that was fostered by Vermeil, but I still consider Saunders linked to it.

Mr. Laz
01-05-2006, 02:28 PM
I know there is a contingency that wants Saunders as a HC. It seems like most believe that's the only way to continue our offensive success. I don't agree, but I'll save that for another arguement. Instead, I'll focus on things that worry me about him being the main man.

1. Larry Johnson
2. Larry Johnson
3. Kris Wilson
4. Clock Management
5. In game adjustments.
6. This is an intangible

1 and 2 ... how much was vermeil, how much was saunders? ... how do you know that sitting LJ on the bench and getting him nice and pissed off wasn't EXACTLY what was needed to make him what he is now?

3. bad draft picks are hardly only Saunders

4. clock management - saunders is up in the booth ... i put the clock management on Vermeil and White.

5. in game adjustments - agreed

6. intangibles - i also put this on Vermeil because it was the same throughout the entire team ... not just the offense under Saunders.

luv
01-05-2006, 02:28 PM
Does Al have the same kind of loyalty that DV had? I think that may have something to do with not playing LJ over Priest. JMO though.

Taco John
01-05-2006, 02:36 PM
How does Carl Peterson escape judgement on Kris Wilson?

jspchief
01-05-2006, 02:36 PM
1 and 2 ... how much was vermeil, how much was saunders? ... how do you know that sitting LJ on the bench and getting him nice and pissed off wasn't EXACTLY what was needed to make him what he is now?

3. bad draft picks are hardly only Saunders

4. clock management - saunders is up in the booth ... i put the clock management on Vermeil and White.

5. in game adjustments - agreed

6. intangibles - i also put this on Vermeil because it was the same throughout the entire team ... not just the offense under Saunders.

1 and 2. Vermeil or not, Saunders let it happen. As a coordinator, he needs to make it clear how to put the best team on the field. He's either guilty of not doing that, or guilty or not having the spine to get it done. And there were enough reports about Saunders' opinion of LJ to make make me think it was more than Vermeil. As for the "running angry" thing, I think it's crap anyway, and certainly don't buy that it was all part of a master plan.

3. Mostly true. But Vermeil didn't go get a h-back without Saunders having a say IMO. Even if I'm wrong, it's probably least of the offenses

4. Good clock management is about more than just gameday. It's about preparation and gameplanning.

6. I put it on Vermeil, but worry that Saunders won't eradicate it like a freah face would. Like I said, it's an intangible based on my opinion.

FringeNC
01-05-2006, 02:36 PM
It's hard to be critical of the man who led the NFL in touchdowns and yards over the past five years. The NFL is a parity league. To be consistently at or near the top like Saunders has been for five years is amazing. I wonder if it has been done since the salary cap and unrestricted free-agency came into being?

A case can be made that Al Saunders is the best offensive coordinator since Walsh and Coryell.

jspchief
01-05-2006, 02:38 PM
How does Carl Peterson escape judgement on Kris Wilson?He doesn't. Believe me, when it comes to Wilson, I'll never see enough heads roll. But I honestly believe that coaches and coordinators lobby for there guys, and deserve a share of the blame when it fails.

Count Alex's Losses
01-05-2006, 02:40 PM
How does Carl Peterson escape judgement on Kris Wilson?

Kris is a talented player. He's not being used correctly.

Anyway, good thread. Al is a fine OC, but overrated by many and not HC material. I wish he could stay.

jspchief
01-05-2006, 02:42 PM
It's hard to be critical of the man who led the NFL in touchdowns and yards over the past five years. The NFL is a parity league. To be consistently at or near the top like Saunders has been for five years is amazing. I wonder if it has been done since the salary cap and unrestricted free-agency came into being?

A case can be made that Al Saunders is the best offensive coordinator since Walsh and Coryell.No, it's not hard to be critical. Especially when evaluating him as a head coaching prospect. You can't just ignore the things he does poorly, when you're trying to get a complete picture.

As for being the best coordinator since Walsh or Coryell, I agree.

Dave Wannstadt was a great O-coord too... how's he been at head coach?

kcfanXIII
01-05-2006, 02:46 PM
i think al saunders is the best choice to keep from missing a beat, but i think the game management of this whole staff is in question. nursing larry along dosen't seem like such a bad idea looking back now. but the end of halfs has been a weakness, burning timeouts too soon, and leaving too much time on the clock.
i want a defensive mind as head coach again. what ever you call it, larry left, larry right, and larry up the middle, will work.

Mr. Laz
01-05-2006, 02:48 PM
Dave Wannstadt was a great O-coord too...
:spock:

morphius
01-05-2006, 02:51 PM
Kris is a talented player. He's not being used correctly.

Anyway, good thread. Al is a fine OC, but overrated by many and not HC material. I wish he could stay.
If he could block he would be useful, but since he can't he is just a large slow WR that other teams see as a large slow WR.

jspchief
01-05-2006, 02:54 PM
:spock:meh..bad example, since Wannstadt was a d-coord. :banghead:

Please insert "Norv Turner".

JakeT
01-05-2006, 02:59 PM
My questions/concerns about Saunders

Is he just another Vermeil cronny? Does he have the balls to come in and fire coaches on the Defensive staff that aren't producing (ie Gunther) or is he just going to keep gun and all of Vermeil buddies and be happy he finally got the head coaching job. -- If that's the answer let's get someone else.

We need someone who can bring a tough mind set to this team and someone who can help Peterman evaluate talent. If AS can't judge D talent and Gunther is kept we're going nowhere. Gun wanted Bell and thought his D-line was just fine.

I like Al and everything he's done you simply can't knock his production -- but these two questions would make me think about looking for another solution.

MOhillbilly
01-05-2006, 03:00 PM
I think Vermiel sat LJ for the same reason Williams sat Arrington.

milkman
01-05-2006, 03:05 PM
Right now, my whole stance is that Al Saunders is the best choice among those that we know that Carl has at least talked to about the position.

Are there other candidates out there that might be better that Carl has talked to, or considered.

Maybe.

But if given the choice between Al and Hermie, I'll take Al without any hesitation.

HemiEd
01-05-2006, 03:05 PM
I think Vermiel sat LJ for the same reason Williams sat Arrington.

I agree, and I do not think his attitude would be as good as it is now without that being done. LJ has grown up a lot during that period.

dirk digler
01-05-2006, 03:06 PM
Very good post jsp. But I can't believe you are advocating that you wanted LJ to play. I am shocked to say the least.

:D

B_Ambuehl
01-05-2006, 03:07 PM
Why don't we wait 3 years from now before passing judgment on whether Saunders is a good head coach or not. For my money I say in 3 years he's proven himself better then Herm. All we know now is a coach is leaving who is the major part of why this offensive football team won 30 games over 3 years and another coach is coming in who's football team was 3-13 this year and who at his very best is an exact clone of the same conservative coach ran out of KC 5 years ago after being a perennial playoff coach.

So at the very best most likely more people are gonna be pissed off 5 years from now and miss that offensive football team of Saunders.

jspchief
01-05-2006, 03:10 PM
I agree, and I do not think his attitude would be as good as it is now without that being done. LJ has grown up a lot during that period.Who would know? If he had received some playing time from the get-go, he may never have had an attitude in the first place.

His whole thing was that he wanted to play. Our coaches didn't even put him in a position to get on the field in garbage time for 16 of his first 26 games. And considering what he's done, it looks like he was justified in wanting on the field.

jspchief
01-05-2006, 03:11 PM
Very good post jsp. But I can't believe you are advocating that you wanted LJ to play. I am shocked to say the least.

:DThat's why I'm a dumbass fan that lets his passion cloud his judgement instead of an NFL coach that puts business first.

MOhillbilly
01-05-2006, 03:12 PM
Who would know? If he had received some playing time from the get-go, he may never have had an attitude in the first place.

His whole thing was that he wanted to play. Our coaches didn't even put him in a position to get on the field in garbage time for 16 of his first 26 games. And considering what he's done, it looks like he was justified in wanting on the field.


are you kidding? a guy whos been pampered and let out on a longchain forever.
Yeah he wanted to play. he wanted to play his way. not the Teams way.

Bank on that.

MOhillbilly
01-05-2006, 03:13 PM
Why don't we wait 3 years from now before passing judgment on whether Saunders is a good head coach or not. For my money I say in 3 years he's proven himself better then Herm. All we know now is a coach is leaving who is the major part of why this offensive football team won 30 games over 3 years and another coach is coming in who's football team was 3-13 this year and who at his very best is an exact clone of the same conservative coach ran out of KC 5 years ago after being a perennial playoff coach.

So at the very best most likely more people are gonna be pissed off 5 years from now and miss that offensive football team of Saunders.

i posted this on another thread but theyre more worried about what is and isnt martyball.


Saunders as HC Solari as OC and Gunther as DC. I dont want to give up picks,i dont want to have a new staff teaching new things. And ive almost convinced myself that if Saunders and Solari stay the oldfarts will give it one more go.
Bring in a new HC and OC and i think Roaf,Shields,Kennison,and Richardson could all part ways and im confident weigman,green & gonzales would the next year.

Tweak the D line take a hard look at Bell and make some moves at WR,but dont jack around w/ whats worked.
Ive read Saunders is much more the hard ass than Vermiel which suits me just fine.

FringeNC
01-05-2006, 03:14 PM
Who would know? If he had received some playing time from the get-go, he may never have had an attitude in the first place.

His whole thing was that he wanted to play. Our coaches didn't even put him in a position to get on the field in garbage time for 16 of his first 26 games. And considering what he's done, it looks like he was justified in wanting on the field.

No doubt that he is a better runner than Priest. No doubt. But is he a better all-around back? I dunno. Our passing game was better with Priest in there. When we were leading the league in offense, why put in LJ, and risk an injury to Trent? If we were struggling on O, it would have been an entirely different story.

jspchief
01-05-2006, 03:16 PM
Why don't we wait 3 years from now before passing judgment on whether Saunders is a good head coach or not. For my money I say in 3 years he's proven himself better then Herm. All we know now is a coach is leaving who is the major part of why this offensive football team won 30 games over 3 years and another coach is coming in who's football team was 3-13 this year and who at his very best is an exact clone of the same conservative coach ran out of KC 5 years ago after being a perennial playoff coach.

So at the very best most likely more people are gonna be pissed off 5 years from now and miss that offensive football team of Saunders. I've actually stated that I could live with something like this.

If we're going to try and cling to this sinking ship, Saunders might be the best option. But the only way I would want to risk it is if I felt he would get fired if he hadn't been successful by the time these guys start declining/retiring. Effectively giving him about a 2 year window.

But the problem is, we're going to be stuck with our next coach for 5 years. Carl is here for 5 more years, then he is done. he's not going to go through all this again in 3 years. I think it's highly likely that this is the last coach hired by Carl Peterson, and he will be here until CP is gone.

tk13
01-05-2006, 03:16 PM
My biggest selling point with Saunders still is, and I think it was me and jsp that had this discussion before... that if we hire somebody that's not Al Saunders, you will lose some of the aggressiveness this team has had, and for most people they consider that a step back toward what people consider "Martyball". The majority of coaches are going to play things more by the book and not have that Martzian type aggressiveness. I don't think some fans will handle that very well.

jspchief
01-05-2006, 03:18 PM
No doubt that he is a better runner than Priest. No doubt. But is he a better all-around back? I dunno. Our passing game was better with Priest in there. When we were leading the league in offense, why put in LJ, and risk an injury to Trent? If we were struggling on O, it would have been an entirely different story.I'm not talking about him starting, or even getting the majority of the plays. But he didn't even dress for 16 of his first 26 games. You'll never convince me that he couldn't have been getting at least a few carries from day one.

dirk digler
01-05-2006, 03:19 PM
That's why I'm a dumbass fan that lets his passion cloud his judgement instead of an NFL coach that puts business first.

I agree about the dumbass part... :p

In all seriousness LJ in year 1 and half of year 2 didn't look like much and he always ran into the back of his blockers. But once PH was out last year he was a different RB and he was just a stud this year. Of course I said this from the beginning of TC when I saw him just destroy the D in River Falls.

I am just glad we won't have anymore silly Priest-LJ arguments.

MOhillbilly
01-05-2006, 03:22 PM
When we were leading the league in offense, why put in LJ, and risk an injury to Trent? If we were struggling on O, it would have been an entirely different story.


thats kind of a strech since we didnt know how poorly LJ would execute the pass protection blocks.

Coogs
01-05-2006, 03:25 PM
I am just glad we won't have anymore silly Priest-LJ arguments.

You are kidding right? This is the Planet you know! ;)

HemiEd
01-05-2006, 03:25 PM
Who would know? If he had received some playing time from the get-go, he may never have had an attitude in the first place.

His whole thing was that he wanted to play. Our coaches didn't even put him in a position to get on the field in garbage time for 16 of his first 26 games. And considering what he's done, it looks like he was justified in wanting on the field.

Correct me if I am wrong but I thought he was pissed at being drafted by the Chiefs knowing they had Priest Holmes. My recollection is that he hit the front door with an attitude but I could be wrong.

donkhater
01-05-2006, 03:28 PM
Martyball was Martyball becuase of the talent he had in that period.

Okoye? Word? Harvey Williams? Greg Hill?
Willie Davis? Tim Barnett? Sean Lachapelle?

Are you kidding me?

Notice that SD has been near the top of the league in offense the last two seasons.

Sure Edwards coached under Schotty for a while, but Cowher did as well and he seems to get the same criticism. I highly doubt that anyone here would be knocking the hiring of Cowher.

Simply Red
01-05-2006, 03:28 PM
Kris is a talented player. He's not being used correctly.

Anyway, good thread. Al is a fine OC, but overrated by many and not HC material. I wish he could stay.

Love ya man! but respectfully disagree about the not HC material.

tk13
01-05-2006, 03:29 PM
Correct me if I am wrong but I thought he was pissed at being drafted by the Chiefs knowing they had Priest Holmes. My recollection is that he hit the front door with an attitude but I could be wrong.
Priest was coming off the hip surgery that offseason. Plus he wanted a new contract.

jspchief
01-05-2006, 03:29 PM
Correct me if I am wrong but I thought he was pissed at being drafted by the Chiefs knowing they had Priest Holmes. My recollection is that he hit the front door with an attitude but I could be wrong.I think that's probably accurate.

Explain to me how keeping him inactive for the first year and a half helped? The guy could have been getting a few carries a game from day one. He could have been the guy with 4 second-half TDs against Atlanta.

Maybe he did come in with a chip on his shoulder, but I don't believe Vermeil and Saunders handled him the right way, and still think the Chiefs could pay for it down the line.

HemiEd
01-05-2006, 03:35 PM
I think that's probably accurate.

Explain to me how keeping him inactive for the first year and a half helped? The guy could have been getting a few carries a game from day one. He could have been the guy with 4 second-half TDs against Atlanta. .

In hindsight, that would have been the right thing to do. However, at the time, Blaylock had been learning to wait on his blocks. I think they wanted to see what they had in him. He did show great improvement IMO. They needed to make a decision as to keep Blaylock or let him go, and LJ was the one left out in the process.


Maybe he did come in with a chip on his shoulder, but I don't believe Vermeil and Saunders handled him the right way, and still think the Chiefs could pay for it down the line.


I am hoping that Carl's good relationship with LJ will overcome this. I agree in hindsight it could have been handled better.

Mecca
01-05-2006, 04:33 PM
What I'll say about it is this, our offense is great but in the current NFL you don't win championships that way. We currently have no one in this organization that knows jack about defensive talent or building a defense.

We keep Saunders, we likely keep that and have 5 years of the same thing we just had.

Count Alex's Losses
01-05-2006, 04:37 PM
I don't think hiring an offensive head coach predicates ignoring the defense.

Look at Brian Billick in Baltimore. Conversely, look at Marvin Lewis in Cincinatti.

We need a competent defensive coordinator.

MOhillbilly
01-05-2006, 04:38 PM
What I'll say about it is this, our offense is great but in the current NFL you don't win championships that way. We currently have no one in this organization that knows jack about defensive talent or building a defense.

We keep Saunders, we likely keep that and have 5 years of the same thing we just had.

im starting to think that if KC replaces hicks or Hall can stay healthy and they get a stud Undertackle in the 340# range things will pan out on D.

TRR
01-05-2006, 05:09 PM
What a B.S thread if I've ever saw one. The guy set NFL records with this offense, and KC doesn't even have a top tier WR.

The guy stuck around KC, even when he wa offered numerous NFL and College Head Coaching jobs. Saunders has done everything in his job description, and then some.

Mecca
01-05-2006, 05:12 PM
What a B.S thread if I've ever saw one. The guy set NFL records with this offense, and KC doesn't even have a top tier WR.

The guy stuck around KC, even when he wa offered numerous NFL and College Head Coaching jobs. Saunders has done everything in his job description, and then some.

He turned those jobs down because the Chiefs OC job paid more money than they did. Don't get me wrong, I like Al. I'm just not sure it's the right hire, you don't win championships in the NFL like that.

TRR
01-05-2006, 05:23 PM
He turned those jobs down because the Chiefs OC job paid more money than they did. Don't get me wrong, I like Al. I'm just not sure it's the right hire, you don't win championships in the NFL like that.

He turned them down because he was loyal to Dick Vermeil, and he thought he was going to be first in line as the next KC Head Coach. Saunders wants to be a HC in the NFL. If he didn't, he would stay as OC with KC, and not be out interviewing for the Lions, Vikings, etc...

Mr. Kotter
01-05-2006, 05:24 PM
I understand the sentiment against AS, but I think he deserved a shot.

1. & 2. Hindsight is 20/20; evaluation of talent, and translating practice field performance to game field performance is an inexact science. Did CP's drafting of LJ create real resentment with AS? I don't know. Maybe. That's human nature though, unfortunately. Hopefully, he learned from the experience if that's the case. Secondly, Priest Holmes was the starter....PRIEST friggin' Holmes.

3. Kris Wilson? Bad judgement, apparently. There are examples of them finding diamonds in the rough though, too.

4. 5. & 6. Maybe, to some extent, but what fans can't point to times to criticize their coaches for similar short-comings.

Saunders is not perfect, but no one is. His record and accomplishments, with what I see as questionable and subjective "shortcomings" don't disqualify him from consideration in my mind--quite the contrary, I think he's earned an opportunity. It looks like he's gonna get that opportunity elsewhere though.

JMHO

Ralphy Boy
01-05-2006, 06:10 PM
My biggest gripe is this, Herm had two years left on his contract in NY and Al Saunders DESERVED a shot at HC, based on the fact that it was his offense that kept us competitive these last few years and our offense will be the only reason we will be capable of winning next year. We could have hired him and in two years if he sucked we could have fired him and THEN hired Herm without giving up draft picks.

Our offense is old and our defense does suck despite what everyone wants to believe about them getting better. You can get better but still suck.

We had to deal with DV coming in and building up this offense while scrapping our defense and now we have a great O and we are going to scrap it to bring in a new HC who doesn't know it. Brilliant, just brilliant.

If we do get Herm, I will seriously hope that we get Norv Turner or someone other than Terry Shea, who is basically the Guinta of the offense, to run it. People on this board have mentioned Shea numerous times to replace Al and HE ISN'T ANY GOOD! Chicago had the 32nd ranked offense in 2004 with Shea and 29th this year without him and with a rookie QB, think about that. Yeah they added Mushin Muhammad, I'm pretty sure his 750 yards receiving weren't the difference. Thomas Jones rushed for 1,335 yards this year and only 948 under Shea.

The bottom line is Carl doesn't want Saunders because they don't like each other.

tk13
01-05-2006, 06:19 PM
Shea didn't have nearly the talent we have here. I'm not saying he'll be a good OC, I have no idea, but they don't have half the offensive talent we do. They gave our 5th best offensive lineman a 14 million dollar signing bonus.

B_Ambuehl
01-05-2006, 06:22 PM
I don't think there's any doubt that with the talent Saunders had to work with he accomplished things that won't ever be seen again in the National Football League. People don't seem to realize how uncommon it is to manufacture talent and have that many projects on a football team actually pay off. When it happens with one player on a team that's a welcome surprise, yet when you have it occuring with multiple players on a team that's an anamoly and must say something about the coaching staff.

Take Brian Waters for example. You don't see fullbacks and tight ends readily convert into the best guards in football. Take Tony Richardson. He went from a runner to the best blocking back in football. Look at the 4000+ passing yards piled up every year by Trent Green and then try to figure out where it all went.....how the hell did Saunders get 4000 yards of production out of that receiving corps? Gonzo is good for ~1000 but where'd the other 3000 come from?

Look at Dante Hall....a converted tailback/ NFL europe project who never ran a pass pattern in college morphing into the top kick returner and a legitimate threat at the wide receiver position. Eddie Kennison putting up back to back 1000 yard seasons. Casey Wiegmann going from a backup to probably the most dominating center in the game. Jason Dunn becoming the best blocking tight end in football.....the list goes on and on.

For most offensive and defensive units in the NFL, you can simply tally up the draft ranking for each player on the unit, get an average, and predict fiarly accurately what sort've production that unit is getting.

If you did that with this KC offense under Saunders, I imagine they'd rank in the bottom 1/4 of the league, yet instead they rank in the top 5.

Anytime a "system" can outproduce the draft picks going into that system, that's good coaching.

In contrast, anytime a system underproduces the draft picks going into that system, that's bad coaching.

DaneMcCloud
01-05-2006, 06:25 PM
The more that I read topics like this, the more apparent it becomes that most posters watch only the Chiefs and not the rest of the NFL. All AS has done has lead the league in most offensive categories for the past 5 years. What more do you want? Perfection?

In addition, he's done it without a Pro Bowl receiver. Oh, but you say TG is a Pro Bowl Tight end, it's the same. Well, no it's not. Baltimore has a Pro Bowl tight end, Pro Bowl running back and Pro Bowl offensive lineman, and where exactly has that taken them in the rankings? The bottom?

Al Saunders is totally unappreciated by many posters here and apparently, by CP himself. It's really too bad.

I predict that Chiefsplanet will actually implode next year with Edwards at the helm when the Chiefs have the 21st ranked offense, the 16th ranked defense and a 7-9 record. Sounds like a blast. Woo-hoo!

Dane
~truly disappointed

4th and Long
01-05-2006, 06:54 PM
Al Saunders...What he's done wrong.
Training Camp, 1991 ...

penchief
01-05-2006, 07:09 PM
I agree, and I do not think his attitude would be as good as it is now without that being done. LJ has grown up a lot during that period.

This kind of talk is, and always has been, mere speculation. And I think it's bullshit. LJ stewed but he contained himself much better than most would have knowing what we know now. This is pro football, not a therapy session. If they stuck Larry on the inactive list to teach him a lesson then they deserved to have been fired before now. Good coaches bring out the best in their young players through coaching and putting them in a position to succeed. How is it that Kris Wilson was penciled in as our secret weapon before he even donned a chief's uniform but LJ was shat on from the time his name left Tagliabue's lips?

jspchief is correct. How could Saunders keep an obviously superior talent off the field (and even the roster) and still be considered a good evaluator of talent? IMO, it is downright silly to suggest that both Vermiel and Saunders were doing it for LJ's good when it was their handling of him that brought out the worst in Larry. As I said, most players with his talent would have behaved worse.

Their handling of LJ was not in the overall best interests of the team. I think the LJ fiasco exposed Vermeil and Saunders for being petty at the expense of the team, as well as LJ's career. I for one do not think Saunders would make a very good head coach.

HemiEd
01-05-2006, 07:14 PM
This kind of talk is, and always has been, mere speculation. And I think it's bullshit. LJ stewed but he contained himself much better than most would have knowing what we know now. This is pro football, not a therapy session. If they stuck Larry on the inactive list to teach him a lesson then they deserved to have been fired before now. Good coaches bring out the best in their young players through coaching and putting them in a position to succeed. How is it that Kris Wilson was penciled in as our secret weapon before he even donned a chief's uniform but LJ was shat on from the time his name left Tagliabue's lips?

jspchief is correct. How could Saunders keep an obviously superior talent off the field (and even the roster) and still be considered a good evaluator of talent? IMO, it is downright silly to suggest that both Vermiel and Saunders were doing it for LJ's good when it was their handling of him that brought out the worst in Larry. As I said, most players with his talent would have behaved worse.

Their handling of LJ was not in the overall best interests of the team. I think the LJ fiasco exposed Vermeil and Saunders for being petty at the expense of the team, as well as LJ's career. I for one do not think Saunders would make a very good head coach.

I think your opinion is horseshit but you have the right to it.

penchief
01-05-2006, 07:21 PM
I think your opinion is horseshit but you have the right to it.

Well you can go on deluding yourself if you believe that LJ's success is due to Vermeil and Saunders treating him like shit. I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you, too. I'll bet you were also one of those who thought LJ outperformed Priest because Holmes "softened up" the defense for him.

Saunders sucked as a head coach before and I think he would still suck. But you are correct. It is only my opinion.

Logical
01-05-2006, 07:23 PM
1 and 2 ... how much was vermeil, how much was saunders? ... how do you know that sitting LJ on the bench and getting him nice and pissed off wasn't EXACTLY what was needed to make him what he is now?

3. bad draft picks are hardly only Saunders

4. clock management - saunders is up in the booth ... i put the clock management on Vermeil and White.

5. in game adjustments - agreed

6. intangibles - i also put this on Vermeil because it was the same throughout the entire team ... not just the offense under Saunders.Pretty much agree with all that. I wonder if Spock did a mind meld on us or something.

HemiEd
01-05-2006, 07:27 PM
Well you can go on deluding yourself if you believe that LJ's success is due to Vermeil and Saunders treating him like shit. I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you, too. I'll bet you were also one of those who thought LJ outperformed Priest because Holmes "softened up" the defense for him.

Saunders sucked as a head coach before and I think he would still suck. But you are correct. It is only my opinion.


Oh I get it. You totally misunderstood my post, you might want to read it slower and work on the understanding. The point I was trying to make was that LJ was not the only ****ing running back on the team being evaluated. Do you even remember Derrick Blaylock? DB earned his shot to prove himself, did he not? Do you even remember that Priest made a superhuman comeback from that injury? LJ was caught in a situation that did not favor him, that is all. I do not think it was mishandled at all.

In hindsight, it could have been handled better knowing that DB was going to move on.

Logical
01-05-2006, 07:28 PM
The more that I read topics like this, the more apparent it becomes that most posters watch only the Chiefs and not the rest of the NFL. All AS has done has lead the league in most offensive categories for the past 5 years. What more do you want? Perfection?

In addition, he's done it without a Pro Bowl receiver. Oh, but you say TG is a Pro Bowl Tight end, it's the same. Well, no it's not. Baltimore has a Pro Bowl tight end, Pro Bowl running back and Pro Bowl offensive lineman, and where exactly has that taken them in the rankings? The bottom?

Al Saunders is totally unappreciated by many posters here and apparently, by CP himself. It's really too bad.

I predict that Chiefsplanet will actually implode next year with Edwards at the helm when the Chiefs have the 21st ranked offense, the 16th ranked defense and a 7-9 record. Sounds like a blast. Woo-hoo!

Dane
~truly disappointedDane,

In all honesty there are only two people at fault/issue for Al not to end up Head Coach.

Al for not being able to form a relationship with Carl that will get him the job.

Carl if he is letting his personality issues with Al (which is a very strong rumor) affect the decision.

FAX
01-05-2006, 07:29 PM
Dane,

In all honesty there are only two people at fault/issue for Al not to end up Head Coach.

Al for not being able to form a relationship with Carl that will get him the job.

Carl if he is letting his personality issues with Al (which is a very strong rumor) affect the decision.

That and the fact that it would be improper to compensate ourselves with our own draft picks.

FAX

Logical
01-05-2006, 07:31 PM
1 and 2. Vermeil or not, Saunders let it happen. As a coordinator, he needs to make it clear how to put the best team on the field. He's either guilty of not doing that, or guilty or not having the spine to get it done. And there were enough reports about Saunders' opinion of LJ to make make me think it was more than Vermeil. As for the "running angry" thing, I think it's crap anyway, and certainly don't buy that it was all part of a master plan.
....

You are basing that on LJs performance this year. You have no way of knowing that it was the wrong decision two years ago, or even at the beginning of last season. Is it impossible that LJ was raw and improved with practice during the first year and a half?

Logical
01-05-2006, 07:32 PM
That and the fact that it would be improper to compensate ourselves with our own draft picks.

FAXROFL

HemiEd
01-05-2006, 07:34 PM
You are basing that on LJs performance this year. You have no way of knowing that it was the wrong decision two years ago, or even at the beginning of last season. Is it impossible that LJ was raw and improved with practice during the first year and a half?


exactly! :clap:

Count Alex's Losses
01-05-2006, 07:35 PM
You are basing that on LJs performance this year. You have no way of knowing that it was the wrong decision two years ago, or even at the beginning of last season. Is it impossible that LJ was raw and improved with practice during the first year and a half?

You have no way of knowing it was the right decision.

Considering the almost immediate success LJ had when he got consistent carries in a game, I'd say it was the wrong one.

penchief
01-05-2006, 07:44 PM
You are basing that on LJs performance this year. You have no way of knowing that it was the wrong decision two years ago, or even at the beginning of last season. Is it impossible that LJ was raw and improved with practice during the first year and a half?

Only if you believe that what he did at PSU was a fluke. He's doing exactly what he's always done when given the opportunity to play.

Count Alex's Losses
01-05-2006, 07:46 PM
Only if you believe that what he did at PSU was a fluke. He's doing exactly what he's always done when given the opportunity to play.

I feel sorry for you, dude. Germ ran Curtis Martin into the ground in New York. What will he do with LJ?

Chiefnj
01-05-2006, 07:49 PM
criticizing Al for not playing LJ a year or two ago is like criticizing Seifert for not starting Young ahead of Montana sooner.

Before Priest the Chiefs hadn't had a 1000 yard rusher in years. Priest was a huge surprise and carried this offense into a top 3 offense for years. He was an all around great player - runner, receiver and pass protector. But yeah, Al should have benched him in exchange for an unknown commodity who hadn't been asked to catch in college and who still has big problems with pass protection even years later.

Count Alex's Losses
01-05-2006, 07:50 PM
Bad reasoning.

No one was asking for LJ to start, just to get a few carries.

Logical
01-05-2006, 07:53 PM
You have no way of knowing it was the right decision.

Considering the almost immediate success LJ had when he got consistent carries in a game, I'd say it was the wrong one.Frankly when it comes to offense I would trust DV and Al over almost any coaches in the NFL.

Logical
01-05-2006, 07:55 PM
Only if you believe that what he did at PSU was a fluke. He's doing exactly what he's always done when given the opportunity to play.There are literally 100s of college greats who never became anything in the Pros, there are even more who like LJ had only one good college season. Hell there are like 4 or 5 from Penn State alone.

dtebbe
01-05-2006, 07:56 PM
Let's not forget that he MUST be a total control freak. To have a veteran QB like Trent Green and not allow him to audible at the LOS is simply a crime.

DT

Chiefnj
01-05-2006, 07:59 PM
Bad reasoning.

No one was asking for LJ to start, just to get a few carries.

Nice way to telegraph the play. Put in a kid who can't catch and can't block. Gee, I wonder what kind of play they'll run.

milkman
01-05-2006, 08:07 PM
Let's not forget that he MUST be a total control freak. To have a veteran QB like Trent Green and not allow him to audible at the LOS is simply a crime.

DT

That whole "Trent Green doesn't audible" is a myth.

Both Trent and Al have said that there are audibles in the system.

Trent just doesn't have to go into Mangina dramatics to change the play call.

Count Alex's Losses
01-05-2006, 08:08 PM
Nice way to telegraph the play. Put in a kid who can't catch and can't block. Gee, I wonder what kind of play they'll run.

Can't catch? He came out of college as an excellent receiver.

Logical
01-05-2006, 08:14 PM
Can't catch? He came out of college as an excellent receiver.I am sorry but 44 catches is not an excellent receiving RB . Good yes, close to very good (50 would mark very good). Hell Reggie Bush is not even a very good receiver, merely good.

Count Alex's Losses
01-05-2006, 08:16 PM
I am sorry but 44 catches is not an excellent receiving RB . Good yes, close to very good (50 would mark very good). Hell Reggie Bush is not even a very good receiver, merely good.

44 catches in 10 games? In a running offense? You bet it is. He had fine hands. Anyone saying LJ "can't catch" is ignorant.

milkman
01-05-2006, 08:16 PM
Actually, what Al did wrong was allow himself to languish on the sidelines as a receivers coach on the staff of a mediocre HC for nearly 10 years.

mcan
01-05-2006, 08:52 PM
1. Larry Johnson and Larry Johnson alone is responsible for him being deactivated in his first few seasons. He was not learning the offense, and not practicing like the coaches wanted. It wasn't just a matter of him not being GOOD at blocking, it was a matter of him not knowing where to be during the plays. When Priest AND Blaylock both got hurt during the Falcons game last year, Saunders was forced to dump 3/4 of the playbook to ensure that Larry would know what he was supposed to do. Hence the "take off the diapers" comment that Dick made...

2. This wasn't even a BAD call to make. It was a matter of keeping the more versitile runner in the backfield, and it made BOTH of them better. I don't consider this a weakness in Al Saunder's or Dick Vermeil's philosophies, but rather a MAJOR strength. They fostered the atmosphere that allowed BOTH runners to flourish, and allowed LJ to mature into the player that he has now become...

3. It's true that Kris Wilson hasn't done anything to warrent a draft pick yet, and perhaps he never will. But it's hard to fault Saunders for a guy who has been injured for the majority of the time that he's been here. And what's more, now that LJ is the primary back, the offensive packages that feature the "H back" that Kris Wilson was to become have pretty much been rendered obsolete...

4. There have been a few times where we have definately had some poor clock management. But the fact is, ALL clock management decisions come from the sideline and from the QB... Most of the timeouts that we call are because of players not subbing in when they are supposed to, and the play doesn't correspond to the package of players that are in the huddle, or a WR lines up in the wrong spot and it's clear pre-snap that it will be a broken play. Because we have an intelligent QB, he calls timeout and avoids disaster. That's not to say that occaisionally there isn't a communication breakdown with the inordinate number of people who are responsible for bringing the play call from the booth to the sidelines, then to the QB, to the the team in the huddle, and then they lineup and realize that there are only two seconds left on the clock and they are supposed to motion twice before the snap... That's one of the downfalls of a system that uses so many shifts. You can't line up late. But that happens no more than once a game on average. Probably about the same as the rest of the league.

5. I can't really provide an argument to the contrary of this. Sometimes Al tends to get "cute" with this offense. This seemed to happen less as the season wore on, however. And it's a double edged sword. If you always do the obvious thing, than everybody knows what your are going to do. And furthermore, there have been PLENTY of times where the "cute" thing has worked because we've caught people off guard. Not trick plays, but WR screens, reverse playactions that leave the reciever in the middle of the field WIDE OPEN, etc... I think that the Buffalo game was more a matter of we couldn't block anybody that day...

6. I just disagree with you here. I think that the Kansas City Chiefs in general have a winning attitude, and I don't even see what you are talking about. A lot of teams wouldn't have probably even given a real effort to get into field goal range with just 14 seconds on the clock at Dallas after letting go of the lead on a holding penalty, but we DID it. Our offense has CONSISTENTLY pulled quick drives out of our asses to tie or win ball games. Before Al Saunders, if we needed a score on THIS drive, I was already feeling dejected and it was rare (Montana @ Denver) that we ever came through in the clutch. But even that first Raiders game at Arrowhead when Trent threw a touchdown to Snoop Minnis with just a handfull of ticks left to tie the game, I knew that these guys were winners, and I was made a believer. Too bad we lost that game...

As for Saunders' attitude. I haven't heard him speak very much. In fact, I've heard his voice so little that I can't even imagine what his voice sounds like. But I do remember an interview that he gave to 810 in training camp in 2001. It was supposed to be a "rebuilding" year with all these new players. The 810 guy (I think it was Todd Leibo) asked a question that went something like:

"Well, given that this is a rebuilding year, I know we're not thinking SuperBowl right away..."

That's when Al Saunders interrupted him.

... "Why not?..."

Liebo tried to backtrack, but Al just put him in his place with a quiet confidence. "Why not us?" I'll never forget it. Something simple, but it was unmistakable. He knew that he was going to get the job done. He absolutely knew that he was going to do his job well enough to not just win... But EXCELL... And he has done nothing but excell ever since his first day on the job.

FringeNC
01-05-2006, 08:54 PM
1. Larry Johnson and Larry Johnson alone is responsible for him being deactivated in his first few seasons. He was not learning the offense, and not practicing like the coaches wanted. It wasn't just a matter of him not being GOOD at blocking, it was a matter of him not knowing where to be during the plays. When Priest AND Blaylock both got hurt during the Falcons game last year, Saunders was forced to dump 3/4 of the playbook to ensure that Larry would know what he was supposed to do. Hence the "take off the diapers" comment that Dick made...

2. This wasn't even a BAD call to make. It was a matter of keeping the more versitile runner in the backfield, and it made BOTH of them better. I don't consider this a weakness in Al Saunder's or Dick Vermeil's philosophies, but rather a MAJOR strength. They fostered the atmosphere that allowed BOTH runners to flourish, and allowed LJ to mature into the player that he has now become...

3. It's true that Kris Wilson hasn't done anything to warrent a draft pick yet, and perhaps he never will. But it's hard to fault Saunders for a guy who has been injured for the majority of the time that he's been here. And what's more, now that LJ is the primary back, the offensive packages that feature the "H back" that Kris Wilson was to become have pretty much been rendered obsolete...

4. There have been a few times where we have definately had some poor clock management. But the fact is, ALL clock management decisions come from the sideline and from the QB... Most of the timeouts that we call are because of players not subbing in when they are supposed to, and the play doesn't correspond to the package of players that are in the huddle, or a WR lines up in the wrong spot and it's clear pre-snap that it will be a broken play. Because we have an intelligent QB, he calls timeout and avoids disaster. That's not to say that occaisionally there isn't a communication breakdown with the inordinate number of people who are responsible for bringing the play call from the booth to the sidelines, then to the QB, to the the team in the huddle, and then they lineup and realize that there are only two seconds left on the clock and they are supposed to motion twice before the snap... That's one of the downfalls of a system that uses so many shifts. You can't line up late. But that happens no more than once a game on average. Probably about the same as the rest of the league.

5. I can't really provide an argument to the contrary of this. Sometimes Al tends to get "cute" with this offense. This seemed to happen less as the season wore on, however. And it's a double edged sword. If you always do the obvious thing, than everybody knows what your are going to do. And furthermore, there have been PLENTY of times where the "cute" thing has worked because we've caught people off guard. Not trick plays, but WR screens, reverse playactions that leave the reciever in the middle of the field WIDE OPEN, etc... I think that the Buffalo game was more a matter of we couldn't block anybody that day...

6. I just disagree with you here. I think that the Kansas City Chiefs in general have a winning attitude, and I don't even see what you are talking about. A lot of teams wouldn't have probably even given a real effort to get into field goal range with just 14 seconds on the clock at Dallas after letting go of the lead on a holding penalty, but we DID it. Our offense has CONSISTENTLY pulled quick drives out of our asses to tie or win ball games. Before Al Saunders, if we needed a score on THIS drive, I was already feeling dejected and it was rare (Montana @ Denver) that we ever came through in the clutch. But even that first Raiders game at Arrowhead when Trent threw a touchdown to Snoop Minnis with just a handfull of ticks left to tie the game, I knew that these guys were winners, and I was made a believer. Too bad we lost that game...

As for Saunders' attitude. I haven't heard him speak very much. In fact, I've heard his voice so little that I can't even imagine what his voice sounds like. But I do remember an interview that he gave to 810 in training camp in 2001. It was supposed to be a "rebuilding" year with all these new players. The 810 guy (I think it was Todd Leibo) asked a question that went something like:

"Well, given that this is a rebuilding year, I know we're not thinking SuperBowl right away..."

That's when Al Saunders interrupted him.

... "Why not?..."

Liebo tried to backtrack, but Al just put him in his place with a quiet confidence. "Why not us?" I'll never forget it. Something simple, but it was unmistakable. He knew that he was going to get the job done. He absolutely knew that he was going to do his job well enough to not just win... But EXCELL... And he has done nothing but excell ever since his first day on the job.

:clap:

FAX
01-05-2006, 08:57 PM
He knew that he was going to get the job done. He absolutely knew that he was going to do his job well enough to not just win... But EXCELL... And he has done nothing but excell ever since his first day on the job.

Amen. Al haters can kiss my draft picks.

FAX

Logical
01-05-2006, 09:02 PM
44 catches in 10 games? In a running offense? You bet it is. He had fine hands. Anyone saying LJ "can't catch" is ignorant.1st it is 12 games where have you been, it has not been 10 since I was in High School. It went to 11 when I was in college and has been 12 for several years now.


For proof of 12 game season go here, including the Bowl game they played 13 games.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/teamsched?teamId=213&year=2002

Being better than "can't catch" is not equivalent to "excellent".

jspchief
01-05-2006, 09:33 PM
You guys are right. Al Saunders has no flaws. He is the perfect coaching candidate.

mcan
01-05-2006, 10:34 PM
You guys are right. Al Saunders has no flaws. He is the perfect coaching candidate.


He might very well HAVE flaws. But in his five years here, he hasn't really shown them. All he's done is consistently put the ball in the end zone. Enough times that he's completely shattered every offensive record that the Chiefs held... I mean... I think a more appropriate question would be:

What has Al Saunders done wrong that can justify him getting passed over? What could he POSSIBLY have done better?

jspchief
01-05-2006, 10:39 PM
He might very well HAVE flaws. But in his five years here, he hasn't really shown them. All he's done is consistently put the ball in the end zone. Enough times that he's completely shattered every offensive record that the Chiefs held... I mean... I think a more appropriate question would be:

What has Al Saunders done wrong that can justify him getting passed over? What could he POSSIBLY have done better?I made a list in the thread starter.

No one is claiming he's not a good o-coord. But we have no idea how that translates to his ability to HC. I gave several examples that might reflect how he would do as HC.

He'll be dealing a lot more with personell decisions, game-planning, team preparation. He'll also be dealing a lot less in the X and O part of the job that he's clearly very good at.

Mr. Kotter
01-05-2006, 10:41 PM
You guys are right. Al Saunders has no flaws. He is the perfect coaching candidate.

I don't think any reasonable person would say that. However, I think the fact is he's earned the opportunity....if not here, then somewhere else.

Out of the candidates, I can't imagine that an objective observer would not rate him among the top 3 or 4 candidates whose names are being batted around.

Logical
01-05-2006, 10:43 PM
He might very well HAVE flaws. But in his five years here, he hasn't really shown them. All he's done is consistently put the ball in the end zone. Enough times that he's completely shattered every offensive record that the Chiefs held... I mean... I think a more appropriate question would be:

What has Al Saunders done wrong that can justify him getting passed over? What could he POSSIBLY have done better?Oh come on my friend, no one including Bill Bellicheck has shown no flaws.

jspchief
01-05-2006, 10:47 PM
I don't think any reasonable person would say that. However, I think the fact is he's earned the opportunity....if not here, then somewhere else.

Out of the candidates, I can't imagine that an objective observer would not rate him among the top 3 or 4 candidates whose names are being batted around.No doubt. In this very thread I named a scenario I would consider him as the next Chiefs coach.

But every thread has been peppered with "WHY NOT AL DAMMIT!!!??!!" I just thought I'd start a thread giving some resons why not.

Here's another one. No one has seen Saunders in action more than the guy that's doing the hiring. Peterson has to know more about Saunders than any of us. He's seen Al's strengths and his shortcomings. Has it occurred to anyone that Peterson has seen something to make him wary of the Saunders hire? (insert CP knows nothing comment here).

mcan
01-05-2006, 10:48 PM
I made a list in the thread starter.

No one is claiming he's not a good o-coord. But we have no idea how that translates to his ability to HC. I gave several examples that might reflect how he would do as HC.

He'll be dealing a lot more with personell decisions, game-planning, team preparation. He'll also be dealing a lot less in the X and O part of the job that he's clearly very good at.


Yes, I responded to that list. I just don't think the list is very accurate or fair. I think that he has already shown to be a master of game planning and team prep. I mean, that's all he does all week! On Sundays he just calls the plays he thinks will work, and the players execute them. Now, he has yet to have an opportunity to make personell decisions. But that doesn't mean that he won't be able to. I think the fact that he has excelled so greatly at his current responsibilities, it only leads me to believe that he will again excell at whatever new responsibilities that we give him as a head coach...

Judge a tree by its fruit...

Logical
01-05-2006, 10:52 PM
No doubt. In this very thread I named a scenario I would consider him as the next Chiefs coach.

But every thread has been peppered with "WHY NOT AL DAMMIT!!!??!!" I just thought I'd start a thread giving some resons why not.

Here's another one. No one has seen Saunders in action more than the guy that's doing the hiring. Peterson has to know more about Saunders than any of us. He's seen Al's strengths and his shortcomings. Has it occurred to anyone that Peterson has seen something to make him wary of the Saunders hire? (insert CP knows nothing comment here).

Carl Peterson knows how to fill seats, so yes he does know something.

mcan
01-05-2006, 10:55 PM
No doubt. In this very thread I named a scenario I would consider him as the next Chiefs coach.

But every thread has been peppered with "WHY NOT AL DAMMIT!!!??!!" I just thought I'd start a thread giving some resons why not.

Here's another one. No one has seen Saunders in action more than the guy that's doing the hiring. Peterson has to know more about Saunders than any of us. He's seen Al's strengths and his shortcomings. Has it occurred to anyone that Peterson has seen something to make him wary of the Saunders hire? (insert CP knows nothing comment here).


This would be the only real reason I can see for him to not get hired. Perhaps he tends to rub people the wrong way. Perhaps hes a mad scientist type that is a genious at drawing up plays but isn't elequent enough to be a good leader... The fact is, I've never met the guy nor have I seen how he interacts with players behind closed doors. So, there could be many concerns (off the field) that could be prohibitive.

I only know that I very much admire the way Dick Vermeil handled all of those things, and that he is the guy who endorsed Al Saunders at every turn to succeed him. So, I have to assume that Dick thinks the guys is capable of doing all of those things. I trust Dick Vermeil's judgement on those things, since I have no way of knowing any better...

But when it comes to the football aspect of things, I can't think of any single reason why we aren't JUMPING at the chance for Al to be the next head coach...

Mr. Kotter
01-05-2006, 10:55 PM
...Here's another one. No one has seen Saunders in action more than the guy that's doing the hiring. Peterson has to know more about Saunders than any of us. He's seen Al's strengths and his shortcomings. Has it occurred to anyone that Peterson has seen something to make him wary of the Saunders hire? (insert CP knows nothing comment here).

If I really valued Peterson's judgement, that might have some influence....and while I'm not Peterson-hater, his personal relationships, grudges, and emotion seem to get the best of him way too often, IMO. I think this Saunders deal is another example of that....

nychief
01-05-2006, 10:57 PM
Al Saunder molested gochief's mom.

jspchief
01-05-2006, 11:00 PM
If I really valued Peterson's judgement, that might have some influence....and while I'm not Peterson-hater, his personal relationships, grudges, and emotion seem to get the best of him way too often, IMO. I think this Saunders deal is another example of that....Isn't Peterson the guy that hired Vermeil and Saunders in the first place?

nychief
01-05-2006, 11:02 PM
Isn't Peterson the guy that hired Vermeil and Saunders in the first place?

he has hired him twice, actually. After he was shit canned by the Chargers and no one would touch him - making him Emile Harry's wideout coach. THEN he Vermiel and he brought him back and made him a coordinator - promoting him from Wideout coach.

jspchief
01-05-2006, 11:07 PM
he has hired him twice, actually. After he was shit canned by the Chargers and no one would touch him - making him Emile Harry's wideout coach. THEN he Vermiel and he brought him back and made him a coordinator - promoting him from Wideout coach.So which is it?

Is Peterson incapable of making the right coaching hire?

Or does he get credit for being smart enough to bring Saunders in to begin with?

Peterson may make decisions us fans don't agree with, but he's not a bumbling idiot. If he felt Saunders was the best candidate, I think Saunders would already be hired. Maybe it is because CP and AS don't get along. That's enough reason for me. I don't want a coach that is going to have to fight uphill every step of the way.

nychief
01-05-2006, 11:11 PM
So which is it?

Is Peterson incapable of making the right coaching hire?

Or does he get credit for being smart enough to bring Saunders in to begin with?

Peterson may make decisions us fans don't agree with, but he's not a bumbling idiot. If he felt Saunders was the best candidate, I think Saunders would already be hired. Maybe it is because CP and AS don't get along. That's enough reason for me. I don't want a coach that is going to have to fight uphill every step of the way.


I think that Peterson simply doubts that Saunders has the qualities that make a good head coach. I assume it is because he is quiet, and not a big rah rah guy like Marty, Gunther, DV and Herman Edwards.

Mr. Kotter
01-05-2006, 11:12 PM
Isn't Peterson the guy that hired Vermeil and Saunders in the first place?

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.... ;)

I'm not saying he's awful, FTR. He's mediocre. He fills Arrowhead stadium and does just enough to make us competitive. But that's it. It's better than Arizona, New Orleans, or Cleveland. But you know what? I'm tired of mediocre.

For once in his life, Carl needs to say "Fugg it. I'm pulling out all the stops." If we get Herm, that means doing whatever it takes, being bold, to make us the prohibitive AFC favorite next year: renegotiate contracts to get us under the cap, trade up to get Huff or another player we really want and need, find a way to sign a WR, A DT, and DE. And don't accept "no" as an answer. There should be no excuses allowed. Period.

I realize it's easy to say that, and tougher to deliver. But I'm tired of "playing not to lose." I think JoPo's article was right this morning.....damn it, I want a Superbowl, and Carl's way hasn't worked, so Carl needs to try a different approach in my book: roll the dice, baby. What the hell do we really have to lose?

milkman
01-05-2006, 11:14 PM
he has hired him twice, actually. After he was shit canned by the Chargers and no one would touch him - making him Emile Harry's wideout coach. THEN he Vermiel and he brought him back and made him a coordinator - promoting him from Wideout coach.

I'm fairly certain that Carl allowed both Marty and Dick to hire their own staffs, initially at least.

So to suggest that Carl hired Al either time would be just a little misleading.

keg in kc
01-05-2006, 11:17 PM
The only thing he's done wrong is not be a 'yes' man to Peterson. Otherwise, he'd be the next coach. What I don't grasp is how we managed to hold onto him as long as we did. I guess the "assistant head coach" tag and Dick Vermeil's support as next HC was carrot enough.

He'll do a good job somewhere. It just won't be here.

Logical
01-05-2006, 11:18 PM
Isn't Peterson the guy that hired Vermeil and Saunders in the first place? I would say that Marty and DV hired Al in both cases. Carl would have negotiated the contracts most likely.

nychief
01-05-2006, 11:19 PM
I'm fairly certain that Carl allowed both Marty and Dick to hire their own staffs, initially at least.

So to suggest that Carl hired Al either time would be just a little misleading.

he had a hand in it - they are both california guys who have known each other since they where college coaches (Saunders at USC, Peterson at UCLA), to suggest that he had NOTHING to do with either hire is silly.

nychief
01-05-2006, 11:20 PM
Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.... ;)

I'm not saying he's awful, FTR. He's mediocre. He fills Arrowhead stadium and does just enough to make us competitive. But that's it. It's better than Arizona, New Orleans, or Cleveland. But you know what? I'm tired of mediocre.

For once in his life, Carl needs to say "Fugg it. I'm pulling out all the stops." If we get Herm, that means doing whatever it takes, being bold, to make us the prohibitive AFC favorite next year: renegotiate contracts to get us under the cap, trade up to get Huff or another player we really want and need, find a way to sign a WR, A DT, and DE. And don't accept "no" as an answer. There should be no excuses allowed. Period.

I realize it's easy to say that, and tougher to deliver. But I'm tired of "playing not to lose." I think JoPo's article was right this morning.....damn it, I want a Superbowl, and Carl's way hasn't worked, so Carl needs to try a different approach in my book: roll the dice, baby. What the hell do we really have to lose?


so like what the titans did?

Mr. Kotter
01-05-2006, 11:23 PM
so like what the titans did?

You know what, I'd trade our last ten years for theirs....absolutely.

I realize they are down right now; however, if they are patient with Fisher, and ride out their cap problems....you know what, they will still make it back to another SuperBowl BEFORE Carl Peterson does.

Do you disagree? :)

nychief
01-05-2006, 11:30 PM
You know what, I'd trade our last ten years for theirs....absolutely.

I realize they are down right now; however, if they are patient with Fisher, and ride out their cap problems....you know what, they will still make it back to another SuperBowl BEFORE Carl Peterson does.

Do you disagree? :)

No. Not really, just trying to find context that's all. Look, I really do understand the impulse, and I REALLY understand the frustration - I just can't write off the next four years just because CP is the GM. I hope there is a middle ground between mediocre and selling our soul.

milkman
01-05-2006, 11:33 PM
he had a hand in it - they are both california guys who have known each other since they where college coaches (Saunders at USC, Peterson at UCLA), to suggest that he had NOTHING to do with either hire is silly.

They may have been in SoCal at the same time, but Carl did not hire Marty's staff, and he didn't hire Dick's.

I would also venture to guess that if Carl had anything to do in hiring Dick's staff, Al would not have been hired then.

Mr. Kotter
01-05-2006, 11:40 PM
No. Not really, just trying to find context that's all. Look, I really do understand the impulse, and I REALLY understand the frustration - I just can't write off the next four years just because CP is the GM. I hope there is a middle ground between mediocre and selling our soul.

FA & the salary cap, have combined to produce Rozelle's dream of parity.

In the age of parity, one has a choice (assuming good people in the front office, organization, and coaching the team): either you can be competitive (but not dominant) most of the time, or you can choose a feast or famine cycle of sorts.

If you get really, really lucky with some players that exceed expectations, with injuries not decimating a season here and there, and if you seem to catch the breaks, you may be able to pull off what New England has.....but it's not likely.

The one year champions, St. Louis, Baltimore, Tampa Bay.....are gonna be much more the norm in the life of the NFL over the next ten years IMHO. I would expect that teams like New England, Indy, and Pittsburg are all coming up on a down-swing in their cycles. With some luck, those down cycles may not be too bad, but I'd be shocked if they stayed consistent over the next five years or so.

So why not try the other approach? :shrug:

KILLER_CLOWN
01-06-2006, 12:15 AM
Carl and Marty fought quite a bit and he was the best HC Peterson has ever hired.

penchief
01-06-2006, 07:06 AM
There are literally 100s of college greats who never became anything in the Pros, there are even more who like LJ had only one good college season. Hell there are like 4 or 5 from Penn State alone.

Not really. You said he might have been raw. Well, what he did at PSU and what he was capable of at the pro level did not justify his being put on the inactive list. Immediately putting a first-round selection with superior talent on the inactive list doesn't happen very often in this league, if ever. There was more to it than just LJ's play. There were plenty of offensive players on that team that had less talent and potential than LJ but were being carried on the active roster. Larry knew he was better than Blaylock and so did everybody else, I'll bet.

LJ wasn't given a chance on the field because it would have thrown a monkey wrench into the "system" that DV and Saunders were so proud of. It's interesting now to watch how much his teammates seem to love playing with Larry; especially the offensive line.

4th and Long
01-06-2006, 08:47 AM
My God, I post toilet humor and get nary a reply.
Training Camp, 1991 ...

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/attachment.php?attachmentid=51300&stc=1
Is this Chiefs Planet or did I step onto the wrong board?

*tap tap* Hello? *tap tap* Is this thing on?

MOhillbilly
01-06-2006, 09:00 AM
ROFL

4th and Long
01-06-2006, 09:16 AM
ROFL
FINALLY!

THANK YOU!

:D

MOhillbilly
01-06-2006, 09:45 AM
FINALLY!

THANK YOU!

:D
Everyone has such a hardon for the next coach they cant find the humor in anything.